Rosa Rubicondior: Refuting Creationism - The Evidence For Denisovans Just Keeps Getting Better

Friday, 11 September 2026

Refuting Creationism - The Evidence For Denisovans Just Keeps Getting Better

Denisovan Radius Discovered for First Time in Southwest China----Chinese Academy of Sciences

Fragments of Denisovan teeth, and bones recovered from Bianfu Cave in Southwest China

From: Rao, H., Xing, S., Ruan, Q. et al. (2026).

Long before the universe supposedly existed, according to Young-Earth creationism, human relatives were making tools and processing animal carcasses in what is now south-western China. Two complementary papers in Nature reveal another chapter of this inconvenient prehistory, combining ancient proteins, fossil anatomy and archaeology to investigate the Denisovans of Bianfu Cave in Yunnan Province.

In the first paper, Huiyun Rao and colleagues identify five Denisovan remains: two teeth, two skull fragments and part of a radius, one of the forearm bones. These come from layers dated to approximately 167,000–134,000 years ago. The radius provides the first securely identified example of this bone from a Denisovan, adding valuable evidence about a human lineage whose skeleton remains frustratingly poorly known.

The identification depended on proteins preserved within the fossils. Researchers screened more than 60,000 bone fragments before selecting promising specimens for molecular analysis. Surviving protein sequences contained diagnostic Denisovan variants, allowing small fragments to acquire an evolutionary identity that their appearance alone could not securely establish. The study also places another confirmed Denisovan locality within a previously conspicuous gap in their known Asian distribution.

A second paper in Nature, by Qijun Ruan and colleagues examines the wider archaeological record. Evidence of cave use extends from approximately 190,000 to 70,000 years ago — a span of around 120,000 years. Its inhabitants hunted medium-sized and large animals, produced stone tools and made extensive use of bones without elaborate modification. These practices suggest practical exploitation of available materials in a landscape of coniferous forest and forest-steppe.

An important distinction remains: the identified Denisovan fossils cover only part of that longer sequence. Attributing the wider archaeological record to Denisovans is the researchers’ most economical interpretation, rather than direct proof that Denisovans occupied the cave throughout. Nor does the sequence establish uninterrupted residence. That qualification illustrates how scientific conclusions are bounded by the evidence.

For biblical literalists, even the securely dated fossil-bearing layers present an insurmountable chronological problem. Their ages are supported by a framework combining luminescence dating of sediments with uranium-series dating of cave formations; dismissing “carbon dating” would miss the methods actually used.

More broadly, these discoveries invite us to understand Denisovans as populations with their own evolutionary history, ecological adaptations and practical skills. Evolution had no obligation to produce modern humans as its predetermined destination. The scientific task is to reconstruct the lives of these relatives from the evidence they left behind—however poorly that history fits a much later creation myth.

Why are they called Denisovans rather than having an agreed species name? A scientific binomial, such as Homo sapiens, identifies a genus and a species. “Denisovan”, however, is an informal name derived from Denisova Cave in Siberia, where ancient DNA first revealed this distinctive human lineage. Researchers could recognise its evolutionary relationships before they had enough securely identified fossils to describe much of its anatomy.

Recognising a lineage and defining a species are different tasks. Genetic evidence can establish that individuals belonged to a related group without automatically determining whether that group should be classified as a separate species, a subspecies, or several closely related populations. There is no universal amount of genetic difference that turns one species into two.

The difficulty is compounded by interbreeding. Denisovans exchanged genes with both Neanderthals and Homo sapiens. This does not automatically make them all one species: recognised species can sometimes hybridise. It does, however, show why a simple definition based on complete reproductive isolation fits human evolutionary history poorly. Populations could diverge while retaining some capacity to exchange genes.

Scientific names have been proposed. Particularly important is Homo longi, the name given to the Harbin skull in 2021. Molecular research subsequently identified that skull as Denisovan, creating a direct connection between a formally named fossil and the Denisovan lineage. Another proposed species, Homo juluensis, has also been suggested as encompassing Denisovans alongside other Asian fossils. These proposals involve competing interpretations of how the fossils should be grouped; they are not simply interchangeable labels. The new Bianfu Cave study discusses this changing taxonomic picture while retaining the term “Denisovans”.

A formal species name is anchored to a designated reference specimen, known as its name-bearing type or holotype. Scientists must then decide which other specimens belong to the same species. Connecting a named skull with Denisovan molecular evidence is therefore a major advance, but deciding how widely that species name should apply still requires comparisons across a geographically widespread and variable fossil record.

“Denisovan” remains useful because it identifies the lineage without requiring every author to adopt the same disputed species classification. The uncertainty concerns the boundaries and naming of the group—not whether these ancient people existed.

This is an example of scientific caution. Evolution produces branching, variable populations, sometimes connected by interbreeding; taxonomy attempts to describe that history with discrete names. As new fossils and molecular evidence emerge, the classification can change to reflect them.

The papers in Nature were accompanied by a news item from the Chinese Academy of Sciences:

Denisovan Radius Discovered for First Time in Southwest China
Scientists recently discovered various Denisovan remains in Southwest China dating back to the late Middle Pleistocene, including the first Denisovan radius—one of two long bones in the forearm.
Denisovans are a genetically identified archaic hominin group believed to have been widely distributed across Asia. However, due to the limited number of fossil remains, especially postcranial bones—those below the skull—a distribution gap has long existed in Southwest China. Therefore, little is known about the physical traits that allowed Denisovans to adapt to different environments.

In a new study, researchers employed a novel proteomic strategy to identify additional hominin bones from a Paleolithic site called Bianfu Cave in Southwest China's Yunnan Province. Paleoproteomic analysis confirmed five hominin remains as Denisovans, helping fill the distribution gap of Denisovans in Southwest China.

According to the researchers, the discovery of the first Denisovan radius provides crucial insights into Denisovan postcranial phenotype.

The study, published in Nature on September 9, was conducted by a research team led by Professor FU Qiaomei from the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology (IVPP) of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), in collaboration with multiple institutions.

New Strategy

ZooMS (Zooarchaeology by Mass Spectrometry) has recently become an important tool for large-scale screening of hominin fossils due to its advantages of micro-invasive sampling, methodological simplicity, rapid identification, and low cost. However, the recovery rate of hominin fossils has been extremely low—only 0.1% at sites such as Denisova Cave and Baishiya Karst Cave. Given that Bianfu Cave yielded more than 60,000 bone fragments, conducting ZooMS analysis on all specimens would be both costly and inefficient.

To overcome this challenge, the researchers developed a novel "morphological pre-screening + ZooMS identification" strategy. This combined approach significantly improved screening efficiency and provided a replicable methodological framework for discovering hominin remains at similar Paleolithic sites with abundant bone fragments.

Through morphological pre-screening, the researchers selected 22 potential hominin remains from the large assemblage of bone fragments. Subsequent ZooMS analysis confirmed that two parietal bone fragments (BFD767 and BFD769) and one proximal radial fragment (BFD771) were derived from hominins.

Among the three newly identified hominin specimens, BFD767 and BFD771 originated from Layer 7, which also contained four hominin teeth. This layer was dated to approximately 148,000–134,000 years ago. BFD769 came from the older Layer 9, dated to approximately 167,000–150,000 years ago.

In addition to the three hominin bones, the research team also analyzed two hominin teeth excavated from Layer 7, including a lower fourth premolar (YHB3518) and a lower second molar (YHB3075).

To obtain comprehensive proteomic profiles of the five specimens, the team extracted and analyzed proteins from multiple fractions of different tissues, including bone, dentine, and enamel. Six to 16 endogenous proteins were identified from each specimen, covering 1,972 to 4,076 amino acid residues. Notably, abundant specific peptides from the amelogenin Y isoform were identified in the enamel of the two teeth, indicating that both teeth belonged to male individuals.

Population Assignment

To determine the population assignment of these hominin specimens, the research team systematically screened for single amino acid polymorphisms (SAPs) within the endogenous proteomes.

They found that all five samples carried the Denisovan-specific variant COL1A2 R996K, indicating their Denisovan identity. Three additional informative SAPs were identified in the enamel of two Bianfu Cave teeth: the Denisovan-related variant AMBN M273V; AMELY 179L, a variant shared by modern humans, Neanderthals, and Denisovans; and AMBN 253A, a variant that distinguishes the Bianfu Cave individuals from Middle Pleistocene Homo erectus in East Asia.

Using the consensus sequences of endogenous proteins from each sample, the researchers constructed Bayesian phylogenetic trees with topologies highly consistent with those obtained from nuclear genome studies. The trees placed modern humans as the sister group to the Neanderthal-Denisovan clade. Each Bianfu Cave sample formed a monophyletic clade with Denisova 3, with a posterior probability of 100 percent. This result aligns with the SAP assignments, supporting the reliable attribution of these specimens as Denisovans.

Morphological Phenotype

Comprehensive morphological analysis was conducted on the two Denisovan parietal bones (BFD767 and BFD769) and one partial radius (BFD771). The cranial vault thickness pattern of Bianfu Cave hominins is most similar to that of H. heidelbergensis and East Asian late Middle Pleistocene archaic Homo.

Notably, BFD771 is the only confirmed Denisovan radius to date. Although it has large proximal dimensions and a likely medially oriented radial tuberosity, similar to Neanderthal radii, its overall external shape and mid-neck cross-sectional geometry align more closely with modern humans. According to the researchers, the first identified Denisovan radius fragment is of exceptional importance. Its mosaic features indicate unique biomechanical demands and behavioral adaptations in Denisovans, differing from those inferred for Neanderthals and modern humans.

Based on their results, Bianfu Cave has the richest Denisovan fossil record currently known outside Denisova Cave. The study fills a critical geographical gap in the known distribution of Denisovans. The Denisovan remains were derived from two different stratigraphic layers dating to Marine Isotope Stage 6. During this glacial period, the relatively warmer climate and abundant food resources may have enabled the Yunnan-Guizhou Plateau to serve as a favorable habitat for hominins and supported the long-term survival of the Bianfu Cave population.

Publications:
Rao, H., Xing, S., Ruan, Q. et al.
Ancient proteins identify various Denisovan remains from Southwest China.
Nature (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-026-10976-9

Ruan, Q., Li, H., Xing, S. et al.
Denisovans from southwestern China and their subsistence strategies.
Nature (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-026-10997-4

Abstract
More than a decade of multidisciplinary research has identified a collection of cranial, facial and dental remains of Denisovans from across Asia, providing insight into their cranial capacity, appearance, diet and evolutionary history. However, our understanding of their spatiotemporal dispersal and morphological phenotype is limited by a conspicuous distribution gap in Southwest China and the scarcity of postcranial remains, in particular, the absence of long bones with diagnostic characteristics. To identify further hominin long bones, we morphologically screened more than 60,000 bone fragments from Bianfu Cave in Southwest China, of which 76 were selected for zooarchaeology by mass spectrometry and 17 for proteomic sequencing analysis. These analyses identified three hominin fossils, comprising two parietal bone fragments and one proximal radial fragment, from layers dated to approximately 167–134 thousand years ago^1.1. Subsequent proteomic analysis confirmed the taxonomic affiliation of these newly identified hominin bones, as well as that of two hominin teeth discovered during the excavation, as Denisovan. These findings establish Bianfu Cave as a Denisovan locality yielding the most abundant remains of this hominin group outside Denisova Cave in Siberia. The results also fill a critical geographic gap in the documented distribution of Denisovans and refine our understanding of their evolutionary history. Furthermore, this study provides direct information on the radial morphology of Denisovans, providing insight into their postcranial phenotype.

a, Map showing the geographic locations of Denisovan fossils determined by molecular evidence. The colours of the map reflect a combination of elevation and environmental context. The map was projected using the Albers equal-area conic projection. b, Western profile map of Trench 2 in Bianfu Cave, showing the stratigraphic layers containing Denisovan remains (indicated by red stars). c, Different views of the lower fourth premolar from layer 7 (YHB3518; from left to right: occlusal, buccal and distal views). d, Different views of the lower second molar from layer 7 (YHB3075; from left to right: occlusal, buccal and mesial views). e, Different views of the Bianfu Cave radius from layer 7 (BFD771, upper row) and its virtual reconstruction (bottom row); from left to right: anterior, posterior, medial, lateral and proximal views. The cross-section indicates the elliptical contour of the radial neck. f, Ectocranial and endocranial surfaces of the Bianfu Cave parietal from layer 7 (BFD767) and its virtual reconstruction to show the branches of the middle meningeal vessels (blue arrows) and vault thickness. g, Ectocranial and endocranial surfaces of the Bianfu Cave parietal from layer 9 (BFD769) and its virtual reconstruction to show the ridge along the superior sagittal sinus groove (blue arrow on top), lambdoidal suture (blue arrow in the middle) and vault thickness. Scale bars, 1 m (b), 1 cm (c,d), 1 cm (e–g). The base map in a uses cross-blended hypsometric tints from Natural Earth (available at https://www.naturalearthdata.com/downloads/10m-cross-blend-hypso/10m-cross-blended-hypso-with-shaded-relief-and-water).

Rao, H., Xing, S., Ruan, Q. et al.
Ancient proteins identify various Denisovan remains from Southwest China.
Nature (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-026-10976-9

Copyright: © 2026 The authors.
Published by Springer Nature Ltd. Open access.
Reprinted under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0)

Abstract
Growing fossil and genomic evidence has substantially advanced our understanding of Denisovans’ evolutionary history^{1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9}, yet their technological behaviours and subsistence strategies remain poorly documented. Here we present a comprehensive analysis of hominin fossils and associated archaeological remains from Bianfu Cave, Yunnan Province, southwestern China. The hominin fossils are dated to about 167–134 thousand years ago (ka), whereas the cultural sequence spanned from about 190 ka to 70 ka, representing one of the longest cultural records most parsimoniously attributed to Denisovans—identified through enamel–dentine junction morphology and palaeoproteomic analyses¹⁰. The new fossils include four teeth that expand the known dental variation of this group, two cranial fragments and a radius. Faunal and pollen records indicate a conifer-dominated forest or forest-steppe environment across Marine Isotope Stages 6 to 4. The inhabitants of Bianfu Cave practised specialized hunting of medium- to large-bodied prey and used a technological strategy characterized by expedient core reduction and tool production, alongside pervasive use of unmodified bones. This pattern suggests an adaptive system prioritizing the exploitation of object affordance over intensive tool manufacture. Bianfu Cave provides unprecedented insights into Denisovan biology, behaviour and ecology in eastern Asia and points to a substantial genetic and cultural legacy in later populations in Southeast Asia and Oceania.

Ruan, Q., Li, H., Xing, S. et al.
Denisovans from southwestern China and their subsistence strategies.
Nature (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-026-10997-4

© 2026 Springer Nature Ltc.
Reprinted under the terms of s60 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

The Denisovans of Bianfu Cave add another substantial chapter to a human history that biblical literalism cannot accommodate. The securely identified fossils alone date from approximately 167,000–134,000 years ago, while the wider archaeological sequence spans around 120,000 years. Even allowing for uncertainty over who occupied the cave during every part of that sequence, the chronological problem for Young-Earth creationism remains overwhelming. These people were living, making tools and obtaining food long before the supposed creation of their planet.

The research also illustrates how evolutionary science works. Fossil anatomy, ancient proteins, archaeological context and dating evidence contribute different pieces of the reconstruction. Researchers distinguish between the molecular identification of particular remains and the more tentative attribution of a longer cultural record. Questions about the appropriate species name remain open because classifications must follow the evidence. None of that uncertainty makes the fossils younger or their Denisovan identity a matter of religious preference.

Nor should Denisovans be understood as unsuccessful attempts to produce us. They were human relatives with their own history, exploiting environments and resources through practical behaviour suited to their circumstances. Evolution proceeds without foresight: our eventual survival does not make us its intended destination, any more than their disappearance makes them a failed experiment.

What emerges is a history of human diversity, adaptation and shared ancestry, reconstructed through evidence that the authors of Genesis could never have known. Science continues to recover that history in increasing detail. Biblical literalism continues to require that almost all of it never happened.

Advertisement

Amazon